Anti-Debate: Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

quote:

---

Jon in Message 1:
I think a great strength in any debator is the ability to debate and defend any position well. So, to help everyone practice their debating skills, and to have some light-hearted fun at the same time, I propose we start a series of threads in which we take topics from current threads and debate them in the new threads but from the opposite (or at least different) position from the one we'd normally take.

---

I propose the first of these debates deal with the issues of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A good starting point will be the OP of one of the earlier threads on the matter:

quote:

---

Nuggin in Message 1 (from Guns):
Here's the 2nd amendment

​

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

​

Here's a definition of "arms"

​

A weapon, especially a firearm

​

So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.

​

But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

​

Where do we draw the line?

​

Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.

---

I think a good way of summing that up is: based on the 2nd Amendment, what controls are and are not Constitutional on firearm ownership?Take your opponents' position and do your best to defend it. Forum rules obviously still apply; arguments that are silly or mocking and that do not stand up to examination will fail.So, let's get started!JonEdited by Jon, : Why do backslashes always show up in my signature in front of my apostrophes; after entering the 'edit' mode and re-submitting, they vanish... strange.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

According to the writing in the Constitution, the purpose of this right is to allow the existence of a militiaspecifically one that is "well regulated". As the government already has plenty of well-formed and regulated armed military branches, the need for a militia of the people, what would amount to an angry mob of armed nincompoops with no training, is nonexistent.This amendment allows for the protection of the right to bear specifically to form a militia; in providing a well-trained and regulated militia that is armed and guaranteed to so remain armed, this amendment's purpose has been served. Rights to bear arms beyond that cannot be seen as guaranteed under this amendmentthe militia is already armed, and the militia is the only thing protected under this amendment.Why anyone would assume this amendment addresses people in general is beyond me.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

That is the past. It appears that the current regulated militias are perfectly equipped to arm their members; I don't think you can argue your right to carry under this amendment on the BYOG policy. Things aren't run like this anymore. In interpreting this amendment, we must make it relevant to our own period, and there is currently no need to arm the people so they have guns when (if) they enter a militia.The militias' arming being otherwise seen to, how can you argue that it is relevant to arm the people in order to prepare them for their service in the militia? We'll start with this one .Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Perhaps by providing your own reasoned interpretation, I might be better able to understand why it is you see my interpretation as inaccurate. What aspects of the amendment, in your eyes, clearly establish it as a protection of the people at large to be armed irrespective of the status of the militia?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar